Yes and no, since consciousness is a product of neuronal and chemical activity in the brain. So you could make an argument that it's in the brain. Although, it isn't a specific thing in the body, like a kidney.
“point me to the Blue” “show me the funny!” “where’s the rich in this guy?” “didn’t you say this guy had a bald?” they’re confusing adjectives with nouns
@@crazyprayingmantis5596Not being a theist myself, it seems to me that the biggest prerequisite for being a theist is to get super comfortable with ignoring _MASSIVE_ red flags and blatantly obvious contradictions. I can't do that personally ;p
@freakishuproar1168 It's probably easier if you don't think or ask questions. My father in law who is a Pastor actually said that to me when i asked him a bunch of questions a few years back, he said "you think too much" And I thought to myself "I can't believe you haven't thought about this" 🤣
I so appreciate John. He knocked every one of Amir's ridiculous arguments out of the ballpark. [And then Amir comes back and just claims the ball is still there. Religion is great at training the brain to deny the reality in front of your eyes]
The Quran has not been changed, therefore it is true. How many times have we heard this? 😂 I also love the "Science cannot explain things, but my religion can therefore it must be more true."
it wasnt just that the quran hasnt changed - it was the special pleading from " i understand that just because something has survived a long time does not necessarily make it true" followed by "but my book has survived a long time, so it makes it true."
Amir: there’s no empirical evidence for antimatter Reality: there’s literally a facility in Geneva called the “antimatter factory” We literally produce antimatter particles in Switzerland so we can study them
Having had to be unconscious a number of times because of epilepsy and surgery, usually found I had lost that time permanently, It was simply I didn't even know I actually existed during that period 🧐
So at the end Amir seemed to suggest that there had to be a 'Who' to start the expansion of the Universe. I maintain that it wasn't a Who but a Horton.
Don't care what some random white guy thinks 😅 I can say the sky is blue with no evidence but you're a fool to dismiss that just bc I provided no evidence
@@readynowforever3676 Carl Sagan was making that quote to illustrate how epistemologically, just because you can't find evidence for something doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist, but that you have no reason to believe it does. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence unless the claim made would require such evidence. If you make a claim that something exists, you necessarily need to find evidence for that things existence whatever form it may come in, and the evidence needs to be proportionate to the claim
@ right and then he tries to bring up a butchered version of Zenos Paradox which is isn’t actually an issue. We have the ability to imagine infinite subdivisions that would make any action impossible, that doesn’t mean they actually exist.
In time there will be evidence for all the wonders of the world…before 1892 we didnt even know where infections came from …give science time..we will get there.
Now, try to explain the difference in the worldview model of 'trust' in the scientific method you are expressing and one based on 'faith' in unknowable certainties.
@@joshuaf.3723 Trust is based on experience, of which we have an abundance of examples contributed by scientific understanding. Faith is based on faith, which makes it useless. Except in one very special case, when you really really REALLY want something to be true, whether or not it is in fact true. Then faith is perfect for the job. Or were you trying for yet another lame Fallacy of Equivocation?
@@joshuaf.3723 one is based to the pondernce of evidence ready to be revised to become more accurate as New evidence and information is uncovered. The other is a Supposedly divine doctrine with no evidence and with the threat of damnation and torment for daring to question the narrative that a group of goatherders told eachother to make themselves feel better about their place in the world
@@joshuaf.3723 He demonstrated the difference in his post. We didn't know this thing, then we explored it, and then we did. The scientific method has done nothing but advance our knowledge. This is an unbroken trend. It's not blind trust. It's trust based on pattern recognition.
...oh indeed! Could it possibly be an offshoot of having your natural narcissism twisted and amplified into a complex that says you are so special that the Sky Daddy is interested in your particular existence!?
In 2000 years are 1400 years when they read the book of Harry Potter is going to still say the same thing that the book of Henry Potter did today it won't change
You know you've got a good one when they start mix-&-matching the counter-apologetics in their minds and respond to that. For the record antimatter, dark matter, and quantum fields in vacuum are not the same thing.
After this call, I can just hear Amir boasting: "I did okay in this discussion. I mean, I came in second, and those two guys I debated came in next to last!"
19:00 Don't forget splitting the moon and the talking ants. Talking ant. I mean a donkey by the virtue of being a mammal, and more than a million times higher chance to talk than an ant, and that's a very, very high bar for a donkey.
I like the sniper analogy because it’s analogous in this sense: eventually, an officer might just say “take the shot” without asking their superiors, or perhaps the sniper may just take the shot without asking. These are things which could happen.
Exactly. This is what Matt D. has explained many a time. He doesn’t know what evidence would convince him, he can’t describe the evidence per se, but an all-wise all-knowing God would know what that evidence is, and so far has failed to provide even a shred of it.
I know I'm pedantic and it's probably not interesting for most people, but: These electric signals in our brains are not comparable to the electric current running in computers. These are action potential chains and not currents that travel along a neuron. The current that flows is the transmission of Ions (not electrons) trough a channel protein in the cell membrane. It's fundamentally different than currents running in a cable. To give a comparison: electric current run through a conductible material like water through a hose. The currents in a brain cell are comparable to a chain of dominos falling over. Our brains work chemically and these chemicals (ions) induce some voltage and electric fields. They don't work like a pc chip with wires and moving electrons. Cheers, a biologist.
Well, deep inside the logic cells that the wires connect, you could say there is something like dominoes falling over. A more telling difference, perhaps, is that, as I understand it, neurons are not binary but fire when a strong enough signal arrives at them. There is the concept of multi-valued logic in computer science, but it has not much been used. Cheers, a computer architect / microprocessor designer
@sthed6832 yes that is pretty much another factor. There is an amplitude modulation going on to reach the threshold of a depolarisation (neuron firing). In addition to that you have neuro transmitters that transfer the domino between the cells, which are also modulated by chemicals. This can lead to time dependent change in the depolarisation threshold. So basically the brain is not electric, but a complex chemical reaction. I always get mad when people act as if a brain and a pc are comparable (especially when it comes from apologists), to claim that it's designed. Believe me, it is not designed ... Or at least not intelligently designed ...
ONE True God? If one god exists, why couldn't many? What would prohibit that concept? If the conditions for one god to exist are met, why not more? What is the logic of Yahweh?
These arguments are so predictable: -“Look at the trees!” -“God of the gaps!” -“The watchmaker!” -‘The scripture is proof of itself!” Same shit over and over again, and they all think they’re going to somehow state these childish, stale arguments better than anyone else before them.
What would convince me? Evidence that points _directly and exclusively_ to a god and not to any other possible explanation. All the evidence I've ever seen fails to do this.
Totally off topic. But Seth has been looking fabulous lately! I guess he’s hit the sweet spot in his age. Old enough to look amazing, but young enough to not look like an old man! 🤣 Anyway, whatever he’s doing is working!
Amir - it takes integrity and logic (your word) to admit when you don't know something. And it takes knowledge to know when science doesn't know something either. You have none of these.
The Quran doesn't have the original scripture. It has a version written down long after it had been passed along as an oral tradition, and thus absolutely worthless.
The word 'evidence' is such a puzzle for so many theists trying to justify the existence of their gods. Science and reality denialists trying to use science to prove their god things exist are consistently but unknowingly hilarious.
It's fair to be in expectation of whatever type of evidence you wish as long as it's applicable to the claim itself. Only applicable evidence can be used to assess a claim. Non applicable evidence does not apply. And is a false expectation
A corollary of this is that when the claim is so extensive that we're asked to accept it as sufficient to account for EVERYTHING, then we're obliged to look at ALL the evidence for everything. And all that evidence has to point exclusively to the claim and not to any other plausible explanation. So far, I have seen NO evidence of this kind. None. And what is required is ALL the evidence ever collected, ever to be collected. ALL evidence is applicable when the claim is comprehensive. So you've really got your work cut out for you there.
@starfishsystems as long as the evidence is applicable to the claim. And apple can never be proven to be an orange. And if it were it would disprove it was an apple. A false expectation at the very least. And a burden set by a false expectation can never be achieved. Right?
When Seth said that he didn't know where the universe came from, I think Amir was about say that Seth "had faith" in not knowing where the universe came from. What does that even mean Amir?
empty space isn't nothing, why is that so hard for some of these people?! also a little amusing to hear this discussion shortly after CERN announce that they have identified the largest anti-matter particle to date
Just present the damn EVIDENCE! It always annoys me when a theist asks "what evidence would you accept" - so stupid. I've never seen a prosecutor in court goto the jury and ask that question.
What we know (through observation, measuring, testing, ect) is that natural processes cause natural processes. What we dont have knowledge of is a supernatural being(s) causing natural processes, necceassy in the origin event of causation of a natural process, or evidence of an existing being neccassary for the origin of a natural process. So it goes by Logic that, as far as we know, natural processes cause natural processes, and so the origin of the universe is a natural process and not a supernatural being.
The prophet of Islam was given all information from the angel Gabriel, apparently, so straight off we are talking about hearsay information IE The so called Prophet did not hear directly from Allah. Not a good start
God of the sensory gaps. Well, we also cannot hear a wide range of sound frequencies, and we cannot see light in the ultraviolet spectrum (just to name a few). So just because we cannot “see” antimatter is not astounding or puzzling at all.
It's amazing how to do the states that the Host never addressed the first point yet the dude after he was addressing the point said I disagree how can you disagree if he didn't make a point
The eternity argument is so fallacious. It's way easier for inanimate matter and energy to exist eternally than a consciousness to exist eternally. Eternity would make it impossible for a consciousness to decide anything, or it wouldn't change anything from just inanimate matter and energy to exist, it would be the exact same. Theists usually say that god is outside time, but that would mean that god is completely incapable of deciding to do anything, since decisions and actions are intrinsically temporal events. If god is outside space time and unchanging that it would have never created the universe, making that kind of god completely illogical.
How bizarre!! He seems perfectly ok with vague "proofs" and faith when it comes to such obvious nonsense as gods, devils, spirits, etc., yet a complete & thorough explanation of consciousness and anti-matter from John was somehow not enough evidence for those objectively verifiable claims!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣 How is someone able to survive on this planet with such silly & obvious biases and cognitive dissonance?! Incredible!
Caller doesn't know what "empirical evidence" is. He seems to think it's only direct sense experience that counts, but that's just wrong. Experimental observations count as empirical evidence.
'Only 1 god is real and, luckily*, I grew up in a family / community / country which follows that 1 real god.' (monotheist) * luckily = the 1 real god arranged it that way. It also arranged that most outsiders would believe in the unreal gods... er, by their own free will, leading to their damnation which is... er, what the 1 real god wants (don't expect this stuff to make sense).
He has no idea what empirical is. And it's hilarious. Also, I don't like to disbelieve people but... like, I totally totally believe that Kyle slamming a Monster Energy for second breakfast is Muslim for real real.
He believes in "the one true god." But then don't they all?!! Haha... And "logic needs to be established" says a guy that believes a dude flew to heaven on a flying horse. Other folks that believe in another "one true god" believe in talking burning bushes, talking serpents and pregnant virgins, so i guess he's in 'good' company. 😂
Amir is trying so hard to sound like he's intelligent re proving a claim, but is failing miserably. So many obvious statements, and word use. "Evidencies"? He doesn't even know that there is no word, "evidencies". His continuing to disagree about consciousness, despite it having a ton of REAL evidence. If you're going to just disregard every fact being presented to you, then you're not interested in a real discussion - you just enjoy hearing yourself talk. Or, in this case, spew bullsh.. Amir is a great example of knowing too little to even recognize that it is obvious how little he knows.
"I've never taken even five minutes to look into my examples, and have zero scientific understanding of them, so I respectfully disagree."
- Amir
Asking “where is consciousness?” is like asking “Where is age? Age can’t be a part of a person because you can’t show me where age is.”
This is great
@@AppealToTheStoned brilliant comparison and definitely using this if the topic ever comes up in conversation.
Yes and no, since consciousness is a product of neuronal and chemical activity in the brain. So you could make an argument that it's in the brain. Although, it isn't a specific thing in the body, like a kidney.
“point me to the Blue”
“show me the funny!”
“where’s the rich in this guy?”
“didn’t you say this guy had a bald?”
they’re confusing adjectives with nouns
I’m about to turn 73. Ask me where is age in the morning when I first get out of bed and I’ll point to every place on my body where I’m feeling it.😂
For thousands of years religious people have tried and failed at 'talking' their god into existence.
My thought hearing some lady yelling 'jesus is real' in the carpark 😂
God is apparently EVERYWHERE
But he's always coming BACK soon 😂
@@crazyprayingmantis5596Not being a theist myself, it seems to me that the biggest prerequisite for being a theist is to get super comfortable with ignoring _MASSIVE_ red flags and blatantly obvious contradictions. I can't do that personally ;p
@freakishuproar1168
It's probably easier if you don't think or ask questions.
My father in law who is a Pastor actually said that to me when i asked him a bunch of questions a few years back, he said "you think too much"
And I thought to myself "I can't believe you haven't thought about this" 🤣
I so appreciate John. He knocked every one of Amir's ridiculous arguments out of the ballpark. [And then Amir comes back and just claims the ball is still there. Religion is great at training the brain to deny the reality in front of your eyes]
Amir needs to learn more about Stephen Hawking, peace be upon him.
Hawkings is a Epstein friend, heck no
Amir sure is lucky that out of all the gods that people have ever invented he happened to be taught to believe in the one true god!
All dogs are the best dog, and all gods are the only real god.
250000 only true gods
@@TheModdedwarfare3i mean all dogs are the best boys. Dogs are able to break reality that way didnt you know
All dogs are puppies 🐶
The Quran has not been changed, therefore it is true. How many times have we heard this? 😂
I also love the "Science cannot explain things, but my religion can therefore it must be more true."
Other than the many many changes that have been made.
Plus the Quran is the last and final word from god, people won’t
let that happen, though something last and final from religion
would be great.
"Science can not explain everything honestly, but my religion can explain everything dishonestly, so that's just as good."
it wasnt just that the quran hasnt changed - it was the special pleading from " i understand that just because something has survived a long time does not necessarily make it true" followed by "but my book has survived a long time, so it makes it true."
Seth and John, an awesome duo!
It must be so hard knowing you found the ONLY true god. Imagine having to carry around the ego involved to have that thought. Must be exhausting.
Maybe that's why some of them are always so angry and hateful, because of the backpains from that weight
Oh hell yes!! Very very well put!! Best comment ive read all year!!! Fuckin Classic!!!
@@JDO6715Ha!!! Fantastic!! I like the way you think!!!
With this guy's logic, we can believe that anything exists! Ramen!
The Engineer!!!! Bringin the heat!! Positrons baby!!!!
Amir: there’s no empirical evidence for antimatter
Reality: there’s literally a facility in Geneva called the “antimatter factory”
We literally produce antimatter particles in Switzerland so we can study them
'The Iliad and the Odyssey' has been copied accurately for around 1,300 years. Does that make Sirens and Cyclopses real?
If you can sing it out LOUD with one eye closed, maybe so 😂
Having had to be unconscious a number of times because of epilepsy and surgery, usually found I had lost that time permanently, It was simply I didn't even know I actually existed during that period 🧐
But a Theist would say he met ‘Jesus’ during the unconscious time. 🤭
@anthonyharty1732 😂😂
Poor Amir..he used the sniper analogy and shot himself down
I just think that he ended up firing a blank.
So at the end Amir seemed to suggest that there had to be a 'Who' to start the expansion of the Universe. I maintain that it wasn't a Who but a Horton.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” - Christopher Hitchens
Don't care what some random white guy thinks 😅 I can say the sky is blue with no evidence but you're a fool to dismiss that just bc I provided no evidence
@@BobbyFriston He died of oseophagal cancer, wdym?
I love Hitchens Razor. Applies to so much even beyond god claims.
An addendum to that may be (but also may be seen as a contradiction):
"Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence" - Carl Sagan
@@readynowforever3676 Carl Sagan was making that quote to illustrate how epistemologically, just because you can't find evidence for something doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist, but that you have no reason to believe it does. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence unless the claim made would require such evidence. If you make a claim that something exists, you necessarily need to find evidence for that things existence whatever form it may come in, and the evidence needs to be proportionate to the claim
Another god of the gap fallacy
Amir wants to argue for logic because he doesnt actually have evidence and wants to bat for last place and call it winning. It’s so dishonest.
He can't even argue for logic since he already comes at all the arguments presupposing his god exists.
@ right and then he tries to bring up a butchered version of Zenos Paradox which is isn’t actually an issue. We have the ability to imagine infinite subdivisions that would make any action impossible, that doesn’t mean they actually exist.
In time there will be evidence for all the wonders of the world…before 1892 we didnt even know where infections came from …give science time..we will get there.
Now, try to explain the difference in the worldview model of 'trust' in the scientific method you are expressing and one based on 'faith' in unknowable certainties.
@@joshuaf.3723
Trust is based on experience, of which we have an abundance of examples contributed by scientific understanding.
Faith is based on faith, which makes it useless. Except in one very special case, when you really really REALLY want something to be true, whether or not it is in fact true. Then faith is perfect for the job.
Or were you trying for yet another lame Fallacy of Equivocation?
@@joshuaf.3723 one is based to the pondernce of evidence ready to be revised to become more accurate as
New evidence and information is uncovered. The other is a
Supposedly divine doctrine with no evidence and with the threat of damnation and torment for daring to question the narrative that a group of goatherders told eachother to make themselves feel better about their place in the world
@@joshuaf.3723I trust the scientific method because I can do it myself and get the same result. That's the difference between trust and faith.
@@joshuaf.3723 He demonstrated the difference in his post. We didn't know this thing, then we explored it, and then we did. The scientific method has done nothing but advance our knowledge. This is an unbroken trend. It's not blind trust. It's trust based on pattern recognition.
I still go back to "where did your god come from?"
And they always try to talk over the hosts....must be a God thing
...oh indeed! Could it possibly be an offshoot of having your natural narcissism twisted and amplified into a complex that says you are so special that the Sky Daddy is interested in your particular existence!?
In 2000 years are 1400 years when they read the book of Harry Potter is going to still say the same thing that the book of Henry Potter did today it won't change
bold use of the LALALALAICANTHEARYOU counter-argument
You know you've got a good one when they start mix-&-matching the counter-apologetics in their minds and respond to that. For the record antimatter, dark matter, and quantum fields in vacuum are not the same thing.
After this call, I can just hear Amir boasting: "I did okay in this discussion. I mean, I came in second, and those two guys I debated came in next to last!"
“I want to get to empirical evidence, and… what kind of evidence would you guys use to decipher if god is true or not?”
Empirical evidence. That kind.
It'd sure be helpful if Amir could objectively demonstrate the existence of _any_ god whatsoever.
JOHN! I have no idea how I haven't seen you before, but you're awesome! Articulated your points so well.
Look him up under the name Godless Engineer
I have been atheist for over 70 years. All I say to theists is leave me alone. I am not your enemy, I am only a person with my own opinion.
He does know that the Quran is a blip in time when it comes to humans in the world
19:00 Don't forget splitting the moon and the talking ants.
Talking ant. I mean a donkey by the virtue of being a mammal, and more than a million times higher chance to talk than an ant, and that's a very, very high bar for a donkey.
how did you determine that difference in probability?
I like the sniper analogy because it’s analogous in this sense: eventually, an officer might just say “take the shot” without asking their superiors, or perhaps the sniper may just take the shot without asking. These are things which could happen.
Every theist that starts with "first let me prove a deity before we go to the creed/doctrine" has lost the debate before it even started
How can you not believe in his god, he has a "holy" book, after all! Just look at the trees/creation! /s
I love how he started all nice and fluffy and as soon as the hosts break his moronic arguments apart, he gets all mad as your typical muslim
We know all about how the brain produces consciousness. The caller is a fool.
What in holy hell does "establish the logic" mean?
Cut the BS. Demonstrate this god.
It’s some kind of woo language that helps them not have to explain the parts they know are BS and help them argue their god into existence
I have for decades asked theists to demonstrate the existence of their particular god. Too date, no such demonstration has been forthcoming.
ANY evidence of a god being true would be nice.
There's already mountains of evidence proving there is no god.
Amir; not playing to win, but playing to not lose.
26:10 dudeeee! That was pretty good, new respect😮😮😮😊
22:00 That is ridiculous shit but then that is religion!
Any god would know what would convince me- and so far I ain't had it.
Exactly. This is what Matt D. has explained many a time. He doesn’t know what evidence would convince him, he can’t describe the evidence per se, but an all-wise all-knowing God would know what that evidence is, and so far has failed to provide even a shred of it.
That sniper analogy sounded like the beginning of a bad joke.
Love from a DeadDomain and Vaush fan!
Changed goalpost from "is empirically demonstrated; existence established" to "is nailed down and fully understood".
Amir is dishonest in his arguments. Another swing and a miss.
I know I'm pedantic and it's probably not interesting for most people, but:
These electric signals in our brains are not comparable to the electric current running in computers. These are action potential chains and not currents that travel along a neuron.
The current that flows is the transmission of Ions (not electrons) trough a channel protein in the cell membrane.
It's fundamentally different than currents running in a cable.
To give a comparison: electric current run through a conductible material like water through a hose. The currents in a brain cell are comparable to a chain of dominos falling over.
Our brains work chemically and these chemicals (ions) induce some voltage and electric fields. They don't work like a pc chip with wires and moving electrons.
Cheers, a biologist.
Well, deep inside the logic cells that the wires connect, you could say there is something like dominoes falling over. A more telling difference, perhaps, is that, as I understand it, neurons are not binary but fire when a strong enough signal arrives at them. There is the concept of multi-valued logic in computer science, but it has not much been used.
Cheers, a computer architect / microprocessor designer
@sthed6832 yes that is pretty much another factor. There is an amplitude modulation going on to reach the threshold of a depolarisation (neuron firing).
In addition to that you have neuro transmitters that transfer the domino between the cells, which are also modulated by chemicals. This can lead to time dependent change in the depolarisation threshold.
So basically the brain is not electric, but a complex chemical reaction.
I always get mad when people act as if a brain and a pc are comparable (especially when it comes from apologists), to claim that it's designed. Believe me, it is not designed ... Or at least not intelligently designed ...
ONE True God? If one god exists, why couldn't many? What would prohibit that concept? If the conditions for one god to exist are met, why not more?
What is the logic of Yahweh?
It's essentially the "my dad could beat up your dad" argument, but playing out on a terrifyingly large civilizational scale.
@@freakishuproar1168 Right! More like Superman versus Mighty Mouse - Who would win?
The proof of anti-matter is in Amir's head.
These arguments are so predictable:
-“Look at the trees!”
-“God of the gaps!”
-“The watchmaker!”
-‘The scripture is proof of itself!”
Same shit over and over again, and they all think they’re going to somehow state these childish, stale arguments better than anyone else before them.
Electricity is magic so therefore God
2:11 The Electron Microscope of Faith is exactly as effective as these X-Ray specs I ordered from a comic book.
What evidence would I accept?
Oh, just anything…that doesn’t contradict reality & would have the same evidential power to anyone.
“Amir…. Welcome”….
If god was real he would sound like Seth 😂
Or Darante 🎙
@@brucebaker810 YES! Haha!
When you start thinking Harry Potterism...
What would convince me? Evidence that points _directly and exclusively_ to a god and not to any other possible explanation. All the evidence I've ever seen fails to do this.
"I'm going to disagree with your facts and evidence because it proves I'm a lying idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about."
If you can prove something exist, then you can prove that it exist! How is this difficult to understand?
The problem with Amir is that he is still locked into the primitive assertion of not understanding something therefore Magic.
So many cult mantras. From the start this was preaching, not conversation.
Amir seems to think that "empirical" means _only_ taste, touch, smell or see. Instrumental detection is _not_ empirical?
Totally off topic. But Seth has been looking fabulous lately! I guess he’s hit the sweet spot in his age. Old enough to look amazing, but young enough to not look like an old man! 🤣
Anyway, whatever he’s doing is working!
Amir - it takes integrity and logic (your word) to admit when you don't know something. And it takes knowledge to know when science doesn't know something either. You have none of these.
Amir uses logic but really it's magic.
I'm not sure if John looks more like a bass fisherman or if I'm waiting for him to help Sam and Dean with the monster of the week.
Science is not a noun to be changed. Science is a process for discovery. Processes of science can possibly change or added to though.
The Quran doesn't have the original scripture. It has a version written down long after it had been passed along as an oral tradition, and thus absolutely worthless.
The word 'evidence' is such a puzzle for so many theists trying to justify the existence of their gods.
Science and reality denialists trying to use science to prove their god things exist are consistently but unknowingly hilarious.
There are people that I have never met, but I believe they exist.
Likewise, there are planets that we have never discovered.
Therefore God exists !
Having the original script of a Twilight Zone episode doesn't make the story true. Same for an original script of the Koran.
It's fair to be in expectation of whatever type of evidence you wish as long as it's applicable to the claim itself. Only applicable evidence can be used to assess a claim. Non applicable evidence does not apply. And is a false expectation
A corollary of this is that when the claim is so extensive that we're asked to accept it as sufficient to account for EVERYTHING, then we're obliged to look at ALL the evidence for everything.
And all that evidence has to point exclusively to the claim and not to any other plausible explanation.
So far, I have seen NO evidence of this kind. None. And what is required is ALL the evidence ever collected, ever to be collected. ALL evidence is applicable when the claim is comprehensive.
So you've really got your work cut out for you there.
@starfishsystems as long as the evidence is applicable to the claim. And apple can never be proven to be an orange. And if it were it would disprove it was an apple. A false expectation at the very least. And a burden set by a false expectation can never be achieved. Right?
@@starfishsystemsspiritual is a defined term. It's in fact opposed to physical 😉🤫
@@starfishsystemsyou disagree? So you believe non-applicable evidence can be applied? I absolutely agree with you. You do falsely think that
When Seth said that he didn't know where the universe came from, I think Amir was about say that Seth "had faith" in not knowing where the universe came from.
What does that even mean Amir?
83 doesn’t need agency for 84 to exist
provide arguments suported by evidence two times about consciousness and antimatter, and still Amir refuse to he's wrong. this is so boring...
Aggressive religious imbeciles are constitutionally incapable of either listening or thinking for themselves.
Where was God when there was no universe?
Starbucks
empty space isn't nothing, why is that so hard for some of these people?! also a little amusing to hear this discussion shortly after CERN announce that they have identified the largest anti-matter particle to date
Just present the damn EVIDENCE! It always annoys me when a theist asks "what evidence would you accept" - so stupid. I've never seen a prosecutor in court goto the jury and ask that question.
What we know (through observation, measuring, testing, ect) is that natural processes cause natural processes.
What we dont have knowledge of is a supernatural being(s) causing natural processes, necceassy in the origin event of causation of a natural process, or evidence of an existing being neccassary for the origin of a natural process.
So it goes by Logic that, as far as we know, natural processes cause natural processes, and so the origin of the universe is a natural process and not a supernatural being.
There was an unprovable thing that went bang...that was god.
The prophet of Islam was given all information from the angel Gabriel, apparently, so straight off we are talking about hearsay information IE The so called Prophet did not hear directly from Allah. Not a good start
And we see these "angels" fly around everywhere! They sound like mosquitoes! Wait, they are? 🤦🏻♂️😁 Where's my swatter?
In my native language Amir, (A muur), same pronunciation, is a wall, while A mier, also same, is an ant! 🤦🏻♂️😁
Hit me on the head and consciousness is gone. Maybe thats a bit of evidence :-)
God of the sensory gaps. Well, we also cannot hear a wide range of sound frequencies, and we cannot see light in the ultraviolet spectrum (just to name a few). So just because we cannot “see” antimatter is not astounding or puzzling at all.
It's amazing how to do the states that the Host never addressed the first point yet the dude after he was addressing the point said I disagree how can you disagree if he didn't make a point
The eternity argument is so fallacious. It's way easier for inanimate matter and energy to exist eternally than a consciousness to exist eternally. Eternity would make it impossible for a consciousness to decide anything, or it wouldn't change anything from just inanimate matter and energy to exist, it would be the exact same.
Theists usually say that god is outside time, but that would mean that god is completely incapable of deciding to do anything, since decisions and actions are intrinsically temporal events. If god is outside space time and unchanging that it would have never created the universe, making that kind of god completely illogical.
I'm sure we have the original book of Scientology too LOL
How bizarre!! He seems perfectly ok with vague "proofs" and faith when it comes to such obvious nonsense as gods, devils, spirits, etc., yet a complete & thorough explanation of consciousness and anti-matter from John was somehow not enough evidence for those objectively verifiable claims!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣
How is someone able to survive on this planet with such silly & obvious biases and cognitive dissonance?!
Incredible!
Poor Amir is lost………can’t listen to reason 🤷♀️
Caller doesn't know what "empirical evidence" is. He seems to think it's only direct sense experience that counts, but that's just wrong. Experimental observations count as empirical evidence.
'Only 1 god is real and, luckily*, I grew up in a family / community / country which follows that 1 real god.' (monotheist)
* luckily = the 1 real god arranged it that way. It also arranged that most outsiders would believe in the unreal gods... er, by their own free will, leading to their damnation which is... er, what the 1 real god wants (don't expect this stuff to make sense).
They also have figured out how to create antimatter also
When he started to talk about antimatter I knew he is talking 'word salad nonsense'
I knew he was scientifically illiterate. And John's takedown of him was epic. Notice he had no response to it.
The consciousness is clearly from god , that’s the classic traits that we see in gods . They create the consciousness that’s evident almost trivial
It's very likely that dolphins are conscious. Did they create us? (Is that why "thanks for all the fish" is written in our hearts?)
I was joking , the caller argument is nonsense as any arguments on god as the one on the pixies
He has no idea what empirical is. And it's hilarious.
Also, I don't like to disbelieve people but... like, I totally totally believe that Kyle slamming a Monster Energy for second breakfast is Muslim for real real.
You don't know that the universe needed 'permission' or 'creation' directly from some outside force.
It’s really sad to an adult calling his imaginary God “Majesty”
Maybe Im being pedantic, but the sniper analogy doesn't make sense unless you assume an infinite chain of command in this hypothetical.
He believes in "the one true god." But then don't they all?!! Haha... And "logic needs to be established" says a guy that believes a dude flew to heaven on a flying horse. Other folks that believe in another "one true god" believe in talking burning bushes, talking serpents and pregnant virgins, so i guess he's in 'good' company. 😂
If any god exsits where was it in the beginning? has it shown itself? feeling something inside you
doesn't make it real!!!!!
Amir is trying so hard to sound like he's intelligent re proving a claim, but is failing miserably. So many obvious statements, and word use. "Evidencies"? He doesn't even know that there is no word, "evidencies". His continuing to disagree about consciousness, despite it having a ton of REAL evidence. If you're going to just disregard every fact being presented to you, then you're not interested in a real discussion - you just enjoy hearing yourself talk. Or, in this case, spew bullsh.. Amir is a great example of knowing too little to even recognize that it is obvious how little he knows.
Evidences? The minute the caller dropped the plural form of "evidence" you should have known it would usher in a standard apologetic trope.